Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transport Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol Assessing social and spatial access equity in regulatory frameworks for moped-style scooter sharing services Xavier Bach a, b, *, Oriol Marquet b, c, Carme Miralles-Guasch b, c a Barcelona Institute for Regional and Metropolitan Studies, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Plaça del Coneixement, Edifici MRA, Planta 2, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain b Research Group on Mobility, Transportation and Territory (GEMOTT), Department of Geography, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain c Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Moped-style scooter sharing services (MSS) offer short-period renting for daily urban mobility and are gaining Moped-style scooter sharing popularity in cities worldwide. MSS provide substantial promise in reducing car-dependency and helping sus­ Micromobility tainability goals, but also significant risks in terms of spatial access equity and social justice. In recent years, Shared mobility European cities have been testing different regulation strategies for MSS but not always succeeding regarding Equity social equity and spatial accessibility criteria. Transport policy Public-private collaboration In this context, this study employs a semi-structured interviewing approach to discuss the main existing MSS regulation models. The aim is to understand how experts, policymakers, and private operators assess the strengths and weaknesses of each model to guarantee spatial and social equity regarding accessibility to the service, while preserving the long-term economic interests of private operators. Our results show a diversity of opinions, with solid consensus on proposing an alternative to the Barcelona regulatory model (capped vehicle licenses, uncapped number of operators), ranging from a numerus clausus model (Paris or Amsterdam) to a laissez-faire model (Madrid or Berlin), based on an open dialogue between administrations and the private sector. However, most respondents noted that the natural path of the regulation (as has happened in the past with other transport innovations) is towards a close public-private partnership model, with greater management and control capacity by the public sector. This option generates the greatest consensus of favouring a more spatial and socially equitable service while preserving its economic viability, although it would involve significant commitment and investment of the public sector. These findings provide valuable feedback for policymakers and transport regulators on how to approach micromobility and MSS regulation. 1. Introduction García-Palomares, 2021), among other issues. Although this debate is far from over, some consensus exists on the importance of regulation to In recent years, moped-style scooter sharing services (MSS) (Fig. 1) maximise their potential and minimise the externalities caused by the are gaining popularity and are already present in more than 100 cities introduction of these new forms of transport. worldwide (Howe and Jakobsen, 2020). This new form of shared There is currently a lack of scientific evidence on how to better micromobility was first introduced in European cities in the late 2010s, regulate these services. Consequently, cities have started planning the and currently, they are being viewed as both an opportunity and a implementation of these services through their own regulation, and challenge for achieving urban mobility sustainable goals. While some using a trial-and-error approach. One of the first cities to start planning authors note the potential in MSS, regarding their use as lighter and the implementation of these services through regulation was Barcelona more sustainable forms of individual motorised transport (Gómez, (northeast Spain) (Fig. 2), which already has a long-standing tradition of 2020), others criticise their unequal spatial accessibility (Bach et al., using mopeds and motorcycles for urban transport (Marquet and 2023), and their occupation of public space (Pérez-Fernández and Miralles-Guasch, 2016). As a result, Barcelona has become a pioneer in * Corresponding author. Plaça del Coneixement, Edifici MRA, Planta 2, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail address: xavi.bach@uab.cat (X. Bach). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.01.002 Received 21 June 2022; Received in revised form 12 December 2022; Accepted 4 January 2023 Available online 5 January 2023 0967-070X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 proposing a new regulatory framework of public-private collaboration participation of the public authorities. These private businesses tend to (PPC), with the purpose of developing the service appropriately. The prioritise the maximising of profit, which can often enter into contra­ Barcelona regulation model, together with others that have emerged in diction with guaranteeing equal access opportunities or equal spatial similar cities, however, has not incorporated specific equity and spatial coverage within the city limits. To date, most cities have allowed op­ access justice criteria. Similarly, to our knowledge, academic research to erators to provide a service at their own discretion, without taking into date has not studied how MSS could be planned using an underlying account whether these services ensure equity and homogeneous access substrate of equity and social justice principles. to the service. In this article, we employ a semi-structured interviewing approach to But, for Pereira and Karner (2021), achieving high levels of universal discuss the Barcelona model, and to evaluate regulatory alternatives that accessibility is a requirement that enables equal participation in society have been most frequently applied to MSS in European cities, such as and, thus, it is perceived as a key feature for urban policies and transport Paris, Madrid, Berlin, or Amsterdam. The aim is to better understand management decisions (Gallez and Motte-Baumvol, 2017). While equity how experts, planners, policymakers, and private operators assess each and social justice are increasingly being integrated into the planning of model’s strengths and weaknesses to guarantee spatial and social equity public transport services (di Ciommo and Shiftan, 2017; Shaheen, 2017; regarding accessibility to the service, while preserving the long-term M. Zhang and Zhao, 2021), there are a few examples of shared micro­ economic interests of private operators. mobility services that are planned on these principles. Policy decisions Following this introduction, we first review the existing literature on regarding new transport forms, such as micromobility, should take equity and social justice in shared micromobility regulation, and explain accessibility into account if they aim to contribute to equity and social the three main MSS PPC models that are employed in European cities. justice. As suggested by Shaheen and Cohen (2019), concerns such as Secondly, we describe the context in which the interviews were under­ low-income affordability, neighbourhood availability, access for people taken, and overview the methods that were employed in this research. with disabilities, underbanked households, or digital impoverishment Thirdly, we structure and discuss the findings. Finally, we conclude with should be addressed in equitable public policies initiatives. One such implications for transport policy. example is the Electric scooter sharing pilot programme implemented in Portland, Oregon, USA (Shaheen and Cohen, 2019), which included as a 2. Background key goal, a driver of expanding access to underserved communities. A similar project was the Better Bike Share Partnership (Fishman and 2.1. Equity and social justice in shared micromobility regulation Allan, 2019) in Philadelphia, USA, which was set up to directly address barriers to access these services for low-income groups and communities In recent years, most cities have seen micromobility modes of of colour. All of these examples have in common a high degree of gov­ transport appear and gain popularity in the form of shared e-scooters, ernment involvement. These cases demonstrate that public-private bikes, or mopeds. Research interest in these vehicles is growing sub­ collaboration (PPC) can play a positive role in achieving common stantially, in particular, regarding their implications in terms of sus­ ground between the needs of the public administration and the private tainability of the transport system (Abduljabbar et al., 2021; sector. Felipe-Falgas et al., 2022; Moreau et al., 2020) or their health impacts The term public-private collaboration can broadly be defined as a (Kobayashi et al., 2019; OECD/ITF, 2020; Otero et al., 2018). Significant collaboration between public and private organisations, in which part­ research has recently been established, analysing the new forms of travel ners share information, resources, or capabilities to achieve an outcome behaviour that these new modes are creating (Bieliński and Ważna, that could not be achieved by organisations that only operate either in 2020; Christoforou et al., 2021; Lazarus et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020). the public or private sector alone (Crispeels et al., 2018). PPC is not Most of the research and debates are focused on the extent to which necessarily a static agreement, but is rather a process that reinvents itself these shared micromobility modes might eventually be used as a during policy diffusion (Wang et al., 2020). PPCs are not new in the first/last mile stage in intermodal trips with public transport and the transportation sector and have been performing well in urban bus ser­ bicycle in everyday mobility (Litman, 2021). vices (Willoughby, 2012) or light rail transit (Salvador et al., 2020). According to some authors, shared micromobility could potentially More recently, they have also been discussed in the context of shared help cities accomplish sustainability and equity goals, in terms of spatial micromobility operations, such as bike-sharing systems (Li et al., 2021). coverage (Meng and Brown, 2021; Palm et al., 2021; Shaheen and However, to our knowledge, they have not yet been evaluated in the case Cohen, 2019), solve their desire to reduce private car-dependency of MSS, even if they offer unique possibilities for urban mobility. Unlike (Nieuwenhuijsen and Khreis, 2016), increase accessibility levels other micromobility services, MSS, have specific ergonomic character­ (Abduljabbar et al., 2021; Horner, 2020), or support more multimodal istics, such as seat, operable pedals, floorboard, etc. (SAE International, planning (Boarnet, 2013). However, in their current form, most shared 2019), and their use is characterised by a different set of temporal and micromobility services are operated by private providers, with no spatial dimensions (Arias-Molinares et al., 2021; McKenzie, 2018, 2019, Fig. 1. Two MSS vehicles in Barcelona. (a) Cooltra. (b) Yego. Photographer: Xavier Bach. 155 X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 2020). Moreover, MSS have specific associated operative needs, such as 2.2. MSS PPC models in European cities curb space management specificities (Shaheen and Cohen, 2019), and operators with fewer years of experience in cities (Shaheen et al., 2020). Despite the lack of scientific evidence on the subject, some European As a result, not only do they have different uses and requirements, but cities have started to regulate these services using different approaches also their environmental (de Bortoli, 2021; Felipe-Falgas et al., 2022) to PPC with private MSS operators. Summarised below are the three and health impacts (OECD/ITF, 2020), injuries in particular, have more common PPC models, which mainly differ in their approach to different dimensions. Because of their characteristics (Aguilera-García MSS regulation, in terms of the number of operators and the number of et al., 2020), the lessons learned from other transport services might not vehicles permitted within city limits. directly be translatable to MSS management. Consequently, there is a Model 1, which can be summarised as “capped vehicle licenses, glaring need for more research into MSS. uncapped number of operators”, is the one being implemented in Bar­ It must be borne in mind that, to date, the scarce academic literature celona (Barcelona City Council, 2019) and has no similar reference in on MSS has mainly been focused on characterising the sociodemo­ Europe. This model restricts the number of vehicle licenses, in order to graphic profile of their users (Aguilera-García et al., 2020, 2021), ensure controlled occupancy of public space, but it does not limit the assessing their spatio-temporal dimension (Arias-Molinares et al., 2021; number of operators, as it considers that the freedom for private com­ Bach et al., 2023; Pérez-Fernández and García-Palomares, 2021), or panies to carry out an economic activity cannot be deprived. To avoid determining the motivations for using these services (Eccarius and Lu, monopolistic situations, the model distributes the licenses to a minimum 2020; Gilibert and Weymar, 2022). According to these articles, MSS are of three operators. As a result, the more companies there are that opt for more frequently used by young high-income men and tourists, and more licenses, the fewer vehicles each operator will be able to deploy. often for personal reasons with sporadic frequency, rather than for Model 2, which is a “regulation based on numerus clausus” model, is commuting to work or college. MSS are generally offered with a implemented in some French cities, such as Paris (Mairie de Paris, pay-per-minute fare (about 18 cents/minute) and can provide 2021), under a national law “d’orientations des mobilités” (Parlement door-to-door service, thus gaining comfort and speed, compared to français, 2019), as well as in Amsterdam, with a two-year pilot test public transport, but with a maximum speed of 45 km/h. (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2022). This regulation is also based on limiting To date, to our knowledge, no studies exist on how to regulate MSS the occupancy of public space, with a maximum number of licenses. services, as the bulk of literature on the subject of micromobility regu­ However, in this case, a limited number of operators (numerus clausus) is lation has only focused on other means of transport with similar char­ selected according to technical criteria. The aim is to provide a higher acteristics, such as bike-sharing (Laa and Emberger, 2020; Nikitas, 2019; quality service to the users and to guarantee the economic viability of Wang et al., 2020; Winslow and Mont, 2019; Wood and Hamidi, 2019), operators. carsharing (Akyelken et al., 2018; Dowling and Kent, 2015), or e-scooter Finally, Model 3, which can be labelled as a “laissez faire policy”, is sharing (Anderson-Hall et al., 2019; Moran et al., 2020; Sareen et al., found in both Madrid and Berlin. It is characterised by the absence of 2021). However, in those studies, even if the roles of the private and any specific regulation (Stadt Berlin, 2022), but there is an open dia­ public sectors are generally explained, there is a lack of clarification logue between operators and the local administration in order to address about how regulation can generate a shared micromobility that would the most relevant issues, such as parking regulations or road safety ensure service equity, notwithstanding understanding how PPC schemes policy. In the case of Madrid, only a slight modification of the mobility can help to achieve that goal. ordinance was carried out, to minimally safeguard public space (Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 2021). Although these three models of regulation are the most prominent in European cities, the reality is that there is no scientific evidence to back Fig. 2. Minimum coverage area defined by Barcelona City Council regulation. 156 X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 up the suitability of any of them, which leaves cities to experiment and interviews, we contacted 20 individuals to solicit their participation, come up with the more efficient models through a costly trial and error with 15 of these requests resulting in an interview. process. The stakeholders who were contacted were carefully chosen for their wide knowledge of MSS under Barcelona’s regulation. Stakeholder di­ 3. Methodology versity was a crucial selection criterion. Selected interviewees included managers from five private MSS operators, five public officials who are 3.1. Context: Barcelona’s MSS regulation directly involved in MSS or responsible for transportation policies, and five individuals with expertise in both transport management and the The study area of this research focuses on the City of Barcelona, micromobility innovation start-up ecosystem (Table 1). which has approximately 1.6 million inhabitants (IDESCAT, 2021) and The set of participating stakeholders encompassed 5 out of the 11 the highest two-wheeled motorisation rate of all European cities (Mar­ MSS private operators in Barcelona (and 3 of them with additional quet and Miralles-Guasch, 2016); in that, in 2020 there were 403 mo­ experience in other European cities) and all of the public administra­ torcycles per 1000 inhabitants (IDESCAT, 2020). The moped and tions involved in mobility issues in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. motorcycle modal share in one working day is about 6.2% (EMEF, 2019, During the planning phase, we made a design decision to maintain Working Day Mobility Survey). In Spanish urban areas, motorcycles and mopeds are used interchangeably for similar uses, and for this reason, in Table 1 this article the Spanish term “moto-sharing” will often be used when Characteristics of the interviewed sample. referring to MSS. Stakeholder Type Organisation Position title of Date of In this context, in 2016, Yego and Cooltra were the first MSS com­ ID stakeholder interviewee interview panies to settle in Barcelona, where their start-ups were founded, while EX1 Expert Mobility advisor Senior October taking advantage of the synergies offered by the largest technological Consultant 26, 2020 and digital ecosystem from the South of Europe (Galtés, 2020). They EX2 Expert European Director June 2, began offering the service without a municipal licence. Barcelona City Institute of 2021 Council only imposed a minimum road safety standard and requested Innovation and Technology of that the companies obey parking regulations. Three years later, in 2019, Urban Mobility two new operators, Actiona and Movo, started offering their services in EX3 Expert Innovation and Senior July 20, the city. During these years, other companies such as Scoot, Motit, Mobility Consultant 2021 Muving, and Outo also tried to introduce services in the Barcelona area, Consultancy but they ended up leaving the city, or even running out of business. EX4 Expert Centre for Coordinator June 3, Innovation in 2021 Shortly after, the MSS, which put some pressure on the question of Cities. Business public space, began to raise concerns among administrations. Conse­ School quently, in 2018, Barcelona City Council started to conceive a regulation EX5 Expert Digital and tech Corporate August 3, for the sector, based on the use that these vehicles make of the public ecosystem Hub Development 2021 Director space. The main goal of this regulation was not only to avoid over- PO1 Private Operator with Co-Founder July 13, occupation of public space, but also to ensure satisfactory road safety operator experience in and Chairman 2021 levels for both the users and the citizens (Barcelona City Council, 2019). Barcelona and (and writer) The regulation was concluded in 2020, with a system based on other European non-transferable licenses, thus setting a precedent, and often a path for cities. PO2 Private Operator with General July 28, other European cities to follow. This regulation made Barcelona a operator experience in Manager 2021 pioneer in proposing a new regulatory framework of public-private Barcelona and collaboration (PPC) with the purpose of developing the service in an other European appropriate way. Following that regulation, Barcelona City Council re­ cities. PO3 Private Operator with City Manager October stricts the operation of shared mopeds to a total of 6958 licences, and to operator experience in 27, 2020 avoid a monopoly role, it imposes a maximum of 2319 licences per Barcelona and operator. As a result, the eleven private operators were given 632 other European licenses each, with permission to provide services for a period of three cities. years (plus one optional year of extension) (Barcelona City Council, PO4 Private Operator with Project November operator experience in Manager 20, 2020 2019). The license is conditional on the payment of a tax. Operators are Barcelona. obliged to provide the service over a minimum coverage area (70.3 km2) PO5 Private Former operator Founder and November and they are not allowed to concentrate more than 50% of the fleet in the operator with experience CEO 10, 2020 more centric area of the city. in Barcelona. PS1 Public AMB Mobility July 22, This regulation has led to some criticism from the moto-sharing sector (Metropolitan Department 2021 sector (Howe, 2020). On the one hand, companies that were already Area of Project operating in the city had to reduce their fleet size. On the other hand, Barcelona) Manager licences were also given to companies with little experience and without PS2 Public Barcelona City Mobility August 10, proprietary technology. Consequently, the market has become frag­ sector Council Department 2021 Manager mented, the economic viability of companies is uncertain, and services PS3 Public ATM (The Mobility July 12, to customers have suffered as users need to be subscribed to multiple sector Metropolitan Service 2021 services. Transport Manager Authority) PS4 Public L’Hospitalet de Mobility July 20, 3.2. Methods sector Llobregat City Department 2021 Council Manager The research approach consisted of semi-structured interviews, PS5 Public ACCIO I+D July 21, which is similar to studies by Butrina et al. (2020), Geffroy et al. (2021), sector (Catalonia Trade Department 2021 and Wang et al. (2020), of senior experts with experience in Barcelona’s and Investment) Project Manager MSS regulation. Beginning with a target to achieve 15 fully completed 157 X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 the anonymity of respondents, in the interests of encouraging free and space to carry out a particular economic activity” (PS2). However, the city open discussion (Butrina et al., 2020). Stakeholders ID codes in Table 1 council did not believe it had the power to intervene in limiting the are maintained in the Findings section. economic activity of certain companies, as it would violate the principle Interviews were conducted remotely between October 2020 and of freedom of competition. They thus chose to focus on a mechanism August 2021 and ranged from 30 to 90 min in duration. They were that could keep the number of vehicles under control: “we wanted to limit recorded after the interviewees’ acceptance. Only one member of the the number of licenses because we did not want any backlash for citizens if study team participated in each interview. Following the semi- there was an overcrowding of public space. That would have led to the service structured interview approach, which is the most used qualitative never succeeding” (PS2). The Barcelona model is the easiest path towards methodology in Human Geography (Kitchin and Tate, 2000), the MSS regulation, by effectively capping the number of vehicles in cir­ interviewer aimed to be knowledgeable, structuring, clear, gentle, sen­ culation but not the operator market. The municipality effectively reg­ sitive, open, conductive, critical, memorising, and interpreting (Valles, ulates the end result of the service, based on the estimated load capacity 2007). An effort was made to not judge, and to offer a space of comfort of the public space: “we calculated the parking capacity of the motorcycle, within which the interviewees could openly speak (Clifford et al., 2003). and what percentage of these spaces were occupied. A fragile area of the city, The perspective of the interviewees was collected without influencing the most central area, was delimited, and the excess capacity that could be them with its point of view, and without specifying whether it was for or occupied by moto-sharing was calculated. We also estimated the number of against what they were saying (Bryman, 2012). mopeds that the city could absorb without saturating the public space” (PS2). No pre-set questionnaire was followed. Questions revolved around While this model is not without challenges (i.e., how to set the exact what the most appropriate regulatory model would ensure in terms of number of vehicles, and how to manage the license acquisition pro­ social and spatial equity, and at the same time would guarantee the cesses), it does save public regulators from having to delve into defining economic viability of companies. In particular, questions on the effec­ the specific conditions, that companies need to meet to be allowed to tiveness of Barcelona’s regulation in meeting these objectives were operate in the city. Most importantly, it also avoids future free- asked. competition complaints and legal challenges from the side of the oper­ In accordance with the work of Winslow and Mont (2019), two pilot ators, and offers an end-result oriented process that is often beneficially interviews were conducted to provide prior training, to check the reli­ viewed from the public opinion perspective. ability and validity of the questions, and to outline the issues to be The model, that in the specific case of Barcelona has led to 6958 addressed. licenses being distributed among 11 operators, causes, however, in­ Interview data were transcribed mainly in Catalan or Spanish and conveniences on the operation-side of the service, as demonstrated by then translated into English, except for one interview that was con­ the negative issues that were raised by other interviewed stakeholders ducted directly in English. All interviews were manually transcribed and experts (PS1, PS2, PS4, PS5, PO1, PO2, PO5, EX1, EX5). These issues except for the English example, which was automatically transcribed can be grouped into three main topics: the excessive number of opera­ using Amberscript software, and supervised by the authors afterwards. To tors, the appearance of opportunistic operators, and the non-compliance make transcription easier, voice speed was reduced by 50% using the of regulation. free online AudioTrimmer software. The matter of the exact number of vehicles allowed in the city, Data were then cross-analysed with the help of Atlas.Ti, a computer- together with the involuntary incentives posed by the model in order to assisted qualitative data analysis software, coding the texts into different spawn irregular practices, was central to the discussion with stake­ topics, contrasting the opinions among interviewers, prioritising ideas, holders. In retrospect, some public sector interviewees (PS1, PS4, PS5) and selecting the main contributions for the article. conceded that the regulation had created a situation with too many Our findings gather the experience of a variety of stakeholders who operators: “It is evident that in Barcelona, there are too many operators” are dealing with MSS, and the results will be valuable to other cities (PS1), or “I don’t think there is a market for so many companies” (PS4). which are considering regulating these services. Having up to 11 service providers operating in a capped vehicle-licence regulation environment often means excessive fragmentation, and can 4. Findings thus jeopardise business viability. While some operators acknowledge the motivations and factors behind the city council decisions, in un­ The section synthesises findings from the interviews, and discusses derstanding the need to not limit competition and to not disturb regional the strengths and weaknesses of each of the regulatory models that were and national competition authorities (PO1), there is some consensus considered during the conversations with the experts. (PO1, PO2, EX1) on the fact that the uncapped number of operators Firstly, the Barcelona regulatory model is examined. The discussion generates a negative incentive towards the creation of opportunistic then moves on, to pose questions regarding two more regulation models operators. These members are those that apply for several licences with that have been suggested by some private stakeholders which operate in only speculative intentions, and with no real interest or capacity of this way in other European cities, but have also been questioned by other providing an actual service. A model based on managing only the interviewees. Finally, the pool of interviewees reflects on the value of a number of licences does not consider technical criteria (such as data service based on a close public-private partnership, a regulation model management, users’ safety, or logistics capacity), and tends to not screen that has not yet been implemented in a MSS, but is very common in the for operators’ conditions. It thus promotes the appearance of such op­ case of bike-sharing services (BSS). erators having no technology or infrastructure, as well as no previous experience. One expert added that “the criteria for selecting the operators 4.1. Model 1: capped vehicle licences, uncapped number of operators should have been stricter and more rigorous and should have granted a right to operate only to those operators that could guarantee a minimum level of The Barcelona model, based on offering a limited number of vehicle quality and experience” (EX1). In the same way, but in the railway sector, licenses, but with no limit to the number of operators, is a highly con­ Montero (2019) found that asymmetric regulation for competition in tested model. Policymakers who are responsible for generating this European railways could also attract opportunistic operators and create model, have defended it under the premise that it was the only model inefficiencies against the interests of consumers and low levels of in­ that could enable neutral competition between private operators, while vestment in innovation. also safeguarding the use of public space by not overcrowding it with an The result of the appearance of opportunistic operators, that unlimited number of vehicles. The municipality saw a preeminent need competed on an equal opportunities basis with more established oper­ to regulate an emergent activity that could affect the conditions of the ators, was that some companies with a significant background in the city urban public space: “regulation, in essence, administrates the use of public ended up having fewer licences. This meant that some of them had to 158 X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 even reduce their vehicle fleet size (EX5). On the other hand, the goal of and Shaheen, 2016) is a good illustration of maximum governmental these opportunistic operators was to solely obtain a licence, and then support, with the condition that shared mobility operators provide so­ take advantage of another operator that would provide the service. One cial and environmental impact results. opportunistic operator revealed: “I saw the business opportunity with li­ The political decision to not intervene in price setting and manage­ cences, which have a value, just like the licences of my tourist apartments” ment of these kinds of services, however, could have implications in (PO5). Another operator, in discussing their competitors, stated that “the terms of equity and social justice. If prices and service conditions (i.e., purpose of some companies was to obtain a licence and to then put themselves number of vehicles, geographic service areas, etc.) were left to be under an operator, since they do not have the know-how or experience decided by the market, these services would tend to not promote social regarding moto-sharing service operations” (PO2). equity and equal access opportunities. These conditions would limit the Both, the appearance of opportunistic operators and the pressure of use of services among users with less purchasing power. maintaining levels of service with a reduced fleet, have led to some non- In terms of the risk of irregular practices, the same expert argued why compliance issues. As reported by the City Council Mobility Manage­ this model would not be ideal: “A market system where innovation criteria ment: “Private operators have ended up in breach of the regulations, putting are required from companies to obtain a concession leads to cheating of the in the street more vehicles than allowed. There were geolocated vehicles only system. If the legislator or the administration must verify that the conditions in the private apps and not in the public MAAS. The operators were even using pass, operators will try, by means of irregular practices or lobbying, to instruct algorithms to falsify data and send us only one part of the necessary data, the legislator so that what those operators want, will occur” (EX4). setting aside the data from other vehicles only for use on their private app” (PS2). Primarily, these dynamics result in harming free competition, and 4.3. Model 3: A laissez faire policy may end up invalidating the municipality goal of controlling the number of vehicles in the public space, as operators are pressured to break the For some private operators, the most positively viewed model would regulations and increase their fleets in order to be economically viable. be one with no regulation on either the number of vehicles or the number of actual operators (as is the case for Madrid or Berlin). That 4.2. Model 2: A regulation based on numerus clausus model, which we can label as a laissez faire model, is based on a framework of collaboration, and open dialogue between the public and In several discussions, the numerus clausus model (that is imple­ the private sector. Two private operators (PO2, PO3) defended it as the mented in Paris and Amsterdam) emerged as a true alternative to Bar­ best model for a MSS, noting that: “the public administration sometimes celona’s regulation model (PO1, EX2). As the interviewees stated, the forgets that MSS operators are private companies which do not receive sub­ local administration should put technical prescription of the vehicles sidies and, therefore, they have to make profits from their economic activities. into regulation, as it enables to increase the overall quality of service: The more freedom they have, the better service they can offer, because they “Shared micromobility services only make sense, both for the user and the will try to make the motorcycles move as much as possible, so it would operator, when they have enough market share, and this is only achieved by definitively mean that citizens will be receiving a better service”. Further­ limiting the supply. The service should be offered by the operators that are more, the same operator (PO3) cites the case of Madrid (a well-known able to provide the best service, maintain the best technology, or can guar­ case of laissez faire approach by MSS operators) as evidence that MSS antee the best security to users” (P01). This opinion aligns with the idea of does not cause problems of saturation of the public space, even in a Cohen and Kietzmann (2014), that a merit-based business model may context of the absence of regulation. MSS is highly successful in the offer a more optimal alignment between service provider and local Madrid scenario since 2018 (Arias-Molinares and Carlos García-Palo­ government goals. mares, 2020), but the service area changes depending on the operator Participants, however, also recognised two main issues with this (Aguilera-García et al., 2020). In this sense, an expert (EX2) supported model, mainly revolving around its lack of efficiency. EX4 and PO1, for the idea that these businesses are only profitable if vehicles are moved instance, warned about potential monopoly or oligopoly situations, that for a minimum of 3–5 trips a day. The other private operator (PO2) is could lead to price setting practices (or to distortions in prices), and the convinced that, without the regulation process, opportunistic operators associated negative effects, such as poor level of service and social would not have appeared, and the market would end up being exclusion (Moscholidou and Pangbourne, 2019). Handing the control of self-regulating, giving rise to a market with 3 or 4 companies. the market to a selected group of companies could also disincentive Despite some private operators being overwhelmingly in favour of further competition and technical innovation, as operators would have these laissez faire approaches, other participants highlighted three fewer incentives to introduce novelties and service-upgrades: “A negative aspects: problems of saturation of public space, citizens’ monopolistic or oligopolistic market generates price setting and a decrease in negative perceptions of these services caused by this saturation, and the quality of the services, and users are the most affected” (EX4). This is failure to guarantee an equal spatial service level, which can lead to evident in the case of e-scooters in Paris, where price setting is outside specific neighbourhoods being left out of the service due to insufficient the sphere of influence of local authorities (Latinopoulos et al., 2021). demand. When confronted with the issue of public space occupation, Public intervention on price has long been regarded as a solution for private operators admitted the need for minimal regulation, in order to price setting and anti-competition tendencies, in particular, in urban avoid the issue, but framed the problem as a simple matter of not coming public transport, in which prices are widely subsidised (van Goeverden into conflict with the rest of the means of transport (PO1, PS2). This et al., 2006). Such interventions, however, are highly contested by pri­ need for minimal regulation would also help on the matter of public vate operators (PO1) who consider that, for now, shared micromobility acceptance, as posed by one participant: “if parking is not regulated, cit­ is still a commercial service and public authorities do not have the right izens could perceive shared vehicles as an enemy of the role they play in the to regulate prices. The decision on whether the public sector needs to transformation of public space in mobility. If pedestrians begin to perceive intervene on micromobility prices is rooted in the debate on whether, or them as a hindrance or a nuisance, they will be in conflict with them” (PS2). not, this transport service should be assumed as public transport. The This perception is similar to those perspectives reported by Butrina et al. contribution of micromobility innovation to making transport sustain­ (2020), which explain the reason why municipalities are adapting to the able is unclear (Sareen et al., 2021). Research is still quite fragmented in new pressures of their kerbside caused by the growing demand of relation to the role micro-mobility, as a transformative solution for emerging micromobility services. meeting sustainable outcomes in urban environments (Abduljabbar With respect to shared micromobility deserts, the term used by Zhang et al., 2021). However, the decision to not intervene is contrary to social et al. (2021) which means “areas with limited mobility services that equity, as prices would be subjected to the free market. The public policy constrain people from accessing services and opportunities”, experts and called “Shared Mobility as a Social and Environmental Benefit” (Cohen public sector agreed (EX1, PS4) on the need for regulation to avoid 159 X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 underserved areas and that they only offer services in the central or step towards making the transportation system more environmentally more populated areas: “When a private operator wants to offer a service, it sustainable, to date, no such consensus exists in the case of MSS. This should offer it to the entire territory. Serving all citizens should be above any makes it difficult for the public sector to justify entering into a hefty private interest. The administration might have to contribute financially when public-private agreement to promote and maintain these kinds of ser­ the deficiency in an area is proved” (EX1). In the laissez faire model, access vices. Finally, and as Laa and Emberger (2020) point out, should a to these services would be left in the hands of private operators, that municipality be interested in pursuing such a collaboration, then it could define their service areas based on market preferences and would would still have to forge and implement the proper regulation to ensure have no incentive to guarantee equal levels of access throughout the that the private operators are not externalising costs by demanding city. This modal contrasts with that of Sherriff et al. (2020), who high­ public resources to maximise private profits. lights the importance of private operators being sensitive to the social and physical geography of cities, and of engaging with existing bodies, 4.5. MSS regulation complexity including transport authorities and local authorities, in co-creating the service. The four regulatory models presented above are significantly different from each other, but they are a good example of the complexity 4.4. A close public-private partnership involved when considering regulating shared micromobility services in terms of social and spatial equity. Diversity of opinions between the After recognising the advantages and disadvantages of the Barce­ different actors has been very high and up to four different models of lona, Paris-Amsterdam, and Madrid-Berlin model, a number of partici­ regulation have been defended. Surprisingly, not all of the opinions of pants (EX2, EX4, PS1, PO1, PO4) offered a solution involving private operators were common and completely contrary to those of the compromise, based on a mixed model that could integrate the needs for public sector, but within the group of private operators themselves there the private operators with the demands of the public administration: were completely opposite views. “These services require public support, because even though they are run by All participants seemed to agree that the regulation process and private companies, citizens also benefit from them” (EX2). That solution settling on one specific regulation model would benefit from a longer would depend on a closer collaboration between the public and private period of discussion. Representatives from the public sector, private sectors, and would involve a trade-off between the private sector guar­ operators, and experts all (PS1, EX4, PS5, PO2, PO3) weighted on the anteeing service area minimums or price maximums, in exchange for the need for more pilot tests in order to gauge the new innovations and administration offering financial contribution and assistance in order to regulations. For some private operators (PS5), the city should have support these services: “Working hand in hand with the administration engaged in a trial-and-error process before deciding on one particular allows MSS to be considered as an additional transport service, and at the model: “The ideal fit is a progressive work based on trial and error” (PS1). same time the operators do not lose money” (PO4). Two interviewees (PS1, This view, however, contrasts with the public calls made by operators PO1) defended a collaboration that is similar to those collaborations that for the city to rush the planning process and allow them to start already exist in public transport: “I imagine a future with few operators and providing the service. It is a policy perfectionism perspective that is a close relationship with the administration” (PS1) or regarding public bi­ commonly found in other transport policy initiatives, and has been cycles services: “the public bicycle concession model should be replicated for identified by Lamb et al. (2020) as one of the main sources of discourses a MSS” (PO1). of climate delay. There is a middle term, in which cities can even focus In a close public-private regulation model, the risks of creating a on a dynamic regulation, that is permanently repositioning, in order to monopoly market (model 2) would disappear. According to an expert: focus on the end users of these emerging mobility options (Goldsmith “It is better to provide the service directly by the public sector than to create a and Leger, 2020). monopoly market” (EX4). He also proffered the idea of creating a public actor with 10–15% of the supply, which would establish a minimum 5. Conclusions quality of the service, and influence the market, so that private operators would be motivated to improve their service quality (EX4). He suggested This study examined the public-private collaboration in MSS in that, eventually, the public sector could offer the service in collaboration Barcelona from the perspectives of the actors involved in that regulation, with a Spanish motor vehicle manufacturer, as a strategy to replace and assessed the positive and negative aspects of regulatory alternatives private vehicles with shared vehicles and, consequently, guarantee a implemented in other European cities. The discussions focused on ana­ reduction in the number of parked vehicles in the public space. This idea lysing how the regulations can guarantee social and spatial equity, connects with the Entrepreneurial State concept of Marianna Mazzucato regarding accessibility to the service, while at the same time preserving (2015), which underlines the strategic role of public investment in the long-term economic interest of private operators. technological innovation processes, and the need to build public-private Using semi-structured interviews, we analysed the three most pop­ partnerships in which the safeguard of the collective interest is ular models of MSS regulation in terms of equity, accessibility, afford­ maintained. ability, and economic viability. The consensus among the consulted Despite recognising the potential benefits of such an approach, two stakeholders seems to be a close public-private partnership model, with public sector interviewees (PS1, PS3) were reticent about this model. “It greater management and control capacity by the public sector. How­ would be difficult to find a cost-benefit balance” (PS3), admitted one ever, this model may imply the need for implementing considerable interviewee. “The costs of a MSS contract are enormous and no previous political will, as it involves significant public spending and commitment experiences are known” (PS1), stated another interviewee. on the part of the administration. Because of that, this model is likely In summary, it remains to be seen how this model, which is the only only a realistic option in those cities which are already convinced of the model that can answer important questions regarding a public transport positive impacts of MSS, would wish to deploy it as an integral part of service (i.e., the economic viability of operators and social and spatial their transportation system. equity), justifies the high public sector spending. With BSS, equitable To date, no such examples exist in the case of MSS since, there is systems seem to be achieved only when funding alliances between the insufficient evidence to claim that these services offer a net benefit in public and the private sectors have been generated (Tiznado-Aitken terms of social or environmental sustainability. Most importantly, there et al., 2021). However, to our knowledge, no similar experience exists are certain barriers to accessing these services, which challenge the idea regarding MSS, which would cast doubts in terms of its applicability in that MSS can improve accessibility and transport for more disadvan­ the case of MSS. Going beyond that, while a strong consensus exists taged groups. Firstly, to use them, one must have a driving licence and among many municipalities on the fact that bike-sharing is a positive be over 18 years of age. Secondly, MSS are more expensive than public 160 X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 transport (Arias-Molinares and Carlos García-Palomares, 2020), which Acknowledgments suggests that they are not affordable for everyone. Further, there are no tested ways to subsidise vulnerable people for using them, as occurs with This work was supported with funding from the Departament social fares in urban public transport. In addition, motorbikes and d’Empresa i Treball, Government of Catalunya under the Industrial mopeds are still very associated with high levels of severe casualties in Doctoral grant [ref. BDNS 443065], from Institut d’Estudis Regionals i traffic accidents (Albalate and Fernández-Villadangos, 2010). Metropolitans de Barcelona, from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Overall, more research is needed to justify economic public funding Government of Spain [grant number PID2019-104344RB-I00] and from for implementing a regulation model that could guarantee equal service Institut de Cultura, Barcelona City Council [grant number 19S01360- levels across all of the municipality area. An ex-ante Cost-Benefit Anal­ 006]. This project has also received funding from the European Union’s ysis (CBA) should be conducted in order to estimate the economic, Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie environmental, and social return of the public investment. Converting a Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 845570. private service into a public sector is not a novel action in the trans­ portation sector, as many transport innovations in the past started as References private businesses to be later incorporated into the public sector, when it was clear that they provided a basic public interest. For example, at the Abduljabbar, R.L., Liyanage, S., Dia, H., 2021. The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: a systematic literature review. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. end of the 19th century, in Barcelona, private tramway lines were 92 (February), 102734 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734. nationalised to provide public service to the citizens and allow the Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J., Sobrino, N., 2020. Exploring the adoption of moped government a larger role in management decisions (Castillo, 1960). scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas. Cities 96 (102424), 102424. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102424. Most recently, BiciMad, a public company in Madrid, started a Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J., Sobrino, N., Vinagre Díaz, J.J., 2021. Moped scooter free-floating BSS after some private operators had abandoned the city, sharing : citizens ’ perceptions , users ’ behavior, and implications for urban because a similar service had failed. However, to date and to the best of mobility. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126886. Akyelken, N., Banister, D., Givoni, M., 2018. The sustainability of shared mobility in our knowledge, no MSS service has been incorporated into any public London: the dilemma for governance. Sustainability 10 (2), 1–13. https://doi.org/ transportation system. The subsidies dedicated to public MSS services 10.3390/su10020420. would probably exceed at least the 22M€/year currently invested on Albalate, D., Fernández-Villadangos, L., 2010. Motorcycle injury severity in Barcelona: the role of vehicle type and congestion. Traffic Inj. Prev. 11 (6), 623–631. https:// docked BSS in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, since MSS have doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2010.506932. higher fleet redistribution expenses and higher vehicle manufacturing Gemeente Amsterdam, 2022. Deelscooter. https://Www.Amsterdam.Nl/Deelvervoe and maintenance costs than BSS. In the case that a public MSS is finally r/Deelscooter/. implemented, an ex-post CBA would also be a useful method to evaluate Anderson-Hall, K., Bordenkircher, B., O’neil, R., Scott, S.C., 2019. Governing Micro- mobility: A Nationwide Assessment of Electric Scooter Regulations. Transportation the degree of fulfilment of the initial predictions and goals. Research Board 98th Annual Meeting. https://trid.trb.org/view/1572811. Our results offer insight into how current public-private collabora­ Arias-Molinares, D., Carlos García-Palomares, J., 2020. Shared mobility development as tions in MSS regulation design are still overly dedicated to avoiding key for prompting mobility as a service (MaaS) in urban areas: the case of Madrid. Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (3), 846–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. over-occupation of public space or ensuring road safety levels for both cstp.2020.05.017. users and non-users. While MSS are certainly gaining popularity, thanks Arias-Molinares, D., Romanillos, G., García-palomares, J.C., Guti, J., 2021. Exploring the in part to the COVID-19 pandemic effects (Gilibert and Weymar, 2022), spatio-temporal dynamics of moped-style scooter sharing services in urban areas. J. Transport Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103193. cities are still debating whether to include them as part of the trans­ Bach, X., Miralles-Guasch, C., Marquet, O., 2023. Spatial access inequalities of portation system and as a true alternative to the private car. micromobility services: the case of moped-sharing systems. Barcelona. Sustainability (in press). Barcelona City Council, 2019. Regulació del nombre i les condicions d’atorgament de les 6. Limitations llicències temporals d’ús comú especial del domini públic per a l’estacionament de bicicletes, ciclomotors i motocicles d’ús compartit. (translation: Regulation of the Despite the plurality and expertise of the people who were inter­ number and the conditions of the temporary licenses of the special common public domain for the parking of bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles for sharing). S1/D/ viewed for this article, only experts based in Barcelona could be con­ 2019-1407. sulted. However, the regulation of Barcelona has been very controversial Stadt Berlin, 2022. Roller-Sharing in Berlin. https://Www.Berlin.de/Tourismus/Infos/Ve and well known within the sector, and the interest in it being dissemi­ rkehr/Sharing/Rollersharing/. nated was very high, both at the academic level and among policy­ Bieliński, T., Ważna, A., 2020. Electric scooter sharing and bike sharing user behaviour and characteristics. Sustainability 12 (22), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ makers. Few cities have as much experience and long-term tradition in su12229640. motorcycles as Barcelona, hence, the opinions of the stakeholders might Boarnet, M., 2013. The declining role of the automobile and the re-emergence of place in be considered more valuable than in other cities. urban transportation: the past will be prologue. Regional Science Policy Practice 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12007. Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. OUP Oxford. https://books.google.es/books CRediT authorship contribution statement ?id=vCq5m2hPkOMC. Butrina, P., le Vine, S., Henao, A., Sperling, J., Young, S.E., 2020. Municipal adaptation to changing curbside demands: exploratory findings from semi-structured interviews Author I: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Inves­ with ten U.S. cities. Transport Pol. 92, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tigation, and Writing - Original Draft. Author II: Conceptualisation, tranpol.2020.03.005. November 2019. Writing – Reviewing and Editing, Supervision. Author III: Con­ Castillo, A. del, 1960. Historia del transporte colectivo en Barcelona : 1872-1959/por Alberto del Castillo y Manuel Riu s.n.]. https://cataleg.uab.cat/iii/encore/recor ceptualisation, Writing – Reviewing and Editing. d/CRb1532325Shistoria%20del%20transporte%20colectivo%20en%20barcelo naOrightresultUX7?lang=cat. Declaration of competing interest Christoforou, Z., Gioldasis, C., de Bortoli, A., Seidowsky, R., 2021. Who is using e- scooters and how? Evidence from Paris. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 92 (January), 102708 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102708. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Clifford, N., Valentine, G., Clifford, N., 2003. Key Methods in Geography. SAGE interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Publications. https://books.google.es/books?id=N-gu9c-YtgAC. the work reported in this paper. Cohen, B., Kietzmann, J., 2014. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 27 (3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1086026614546199. Data availability Cohen, A., Shaheen, S., 2016. Planning for Shared Mobility. www.planning.org/pas/in dex.htm. Crispeels, T., Willems, J., Scheerlinck, I., 2018. Public-private collaborations in drug No data was used for the research described in the article. development: boosting innovation or alleviating risk? Publ. Manag. Rev. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1302247. 161 X. Bach et al. Transport Policy 132 (2023) 154–162 de Bortoli, A., 2021. Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal McKenzie, G., 2019. Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike- alternatives using integrated modal LCA. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. https:// share usage patterns in Washington, D.C. J. Transport Geogr. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102743. 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.007. Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 2021. Ordenanza de Movilidad Sostenible. Boletín Oficial de McKenzie, G., 2020. Urban mobility in the sharing economy: a spatiotemporal La Comunidad de Madrid. comparison of shared mobility services. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. https://doi. Mairie de Paris, 2021. Règlement relatif à la délivrance des titres d’occupation aux org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.101418. opérateurs de 2 ou 3 roues motorisés partagés en libre-service sans station d’attache Meng, S., Brown, A., 2021. Docked vs. dockless equity: comparing three micromobility (No. 5669), 5669. Bulletin Officiel de la Ville de Paris. service geographies. J. Transport Geogr. 96 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. di Ciommo, F., Shiftan, Y., 2017. Transport equity analysis. Transport Rev. https://doi. jtrangeo.2021.103185. org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1278647. Montero, J.J., 2019. Asymmetric regulation for competition in European railways? Dowling, R., Kent, J., 2015. Practice and public-private partnerships in sustainable Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 20 (2), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/ transport governance: the case of car sharing in Sydney, Australia. Transport Pol. 40, 1783591719861722. 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.02.007. Moran, M.E., Laa, B., Emberger, G., 2020. Six scooter operators, six maps: spatial Eccarius, T., Lu, C.C., 2020. Adoption intentions for micro-mobility – insights from coverage and regulation of micromobility in Vienna, Austria. Case Studies on electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 84 (April) Transport Policy 8 (2), 658–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.03.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327. Moreau, H., de Jamblinne de Meux, L., Zeller, V., D’Ans, P., Ruwet, C., Achten, W.M.J., Felipe-Falgas, P., Madrid-Lopez, C., Marquet, O., 2022. Assessing micromobility 2020. Dockless E-scooter: a green solution for mobility? Comparative case study environmental performance using LCA and self-reported modal change. The case of between dockless E-scooters, displaced transport, and personal E-scooters. shared e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-mopeds in Barcelona. Sustainability 14, 4139. Sustainability 12 (5), 1803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074139. Moscholidou, I., Pangbourne, K., 2019. A Preliminary Assessment of Regulatory Efforts Fishman, E., Allan, V., 2019. Bike share. Advances in Transport Policy and Planning 4, to Steer Smart Mobility in London and Seattle. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2019.05.003. Elsevier Inc. tranpol.2019.10.015. Parlement français, 2019. LOI n◦ 2019-1428 du 24 décembre 2019 d’orientation des Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Khreis, H., 2016. Car free cities: pathway to healthy urban living. mobilités (1). Journal Officiel de La République Française. Environ. Int. 94, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.05.032. Gallez, C., Motte-Baumvol, B., 2017. Inclusive mobility or inclusive accessibility? A Nikitas, A., 2019. How to save bike-sharing: an evidence-based survival toolkit for European prespective. Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto 56, 79–104. https://halshs. policy-makers and mobility providers. Sustainability 11 (11). https://doi.org/ archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01683481. 10.3390/su11113206. Galtés, M., 2020. Barcelona startup: Historia e historias del mayor ecosistema OECD/ITF, 2020. Safe Micromobility, 98. https://www.itf-oecd.org/safe-micromobility. tecnológico y digital del sur de Europa. Libros de Cabecera. Otero, I., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Rojas-Rueda, D., 2018. Health impacts of bike sharing Geffroy, D., Oliver, R., Juran, L., Skuzinski, T., 2021. Projecting the Metropolis: Paris systems in Europe. Environ. Int. 115 (April), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2024 and the (re)scaling of metropolitan governance. Cities 114, 103189. https:// envint.2018.04.014. doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103189. July 2019. Palm, M., Farber, S., Shalaby, A., Young, M., 2021. Equity analysis and new mobility Gilibert, M., Weymar, A., 2022. Case study on the use and adaptation of SEAT MÓ technologies: toward meaningful interventions. J. Plann. Lit. 36 (1), 31–45. https:// motorbike sharing service in Barcelona in COVID-19 pandemic year. Case Studies on doi.org/10.1177/0885412220955197. Transport Policy 10 (1), 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.01.019. Pereira, R.H.M., Karner, A., 2021. Transportation equity. In: International Encyclopedia Goldsmith, S., Leger, M., 2020. Effectively Managing Connected Mobility Marketplaces. of Transportation. Elsevier, pp. 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08- Gómez, P., 2020. Redondea. Repensando la movilidad urbana de una forma sostenible. 102671-7.10053-3. Profit editorial. Pérez-Fernández, O., García-Palomares, J.C., 2021. Parking places to moped-style Horner, M.W., 2020. Cities, their form, and accessibility. In: Urban Form and scooter sharing services using GIS location-allocation models and GPS data. ISPRS Accessibility: Social, Economic, and Environment Impacts. Elsevier, pp. 13–26. Int. J. Geo-Inf. 10 (4), 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10040230. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819822-3.00001-8. SAE International, 2019. SAE J3194. Taxonomy Classification of Powered Micromobility Howe, E., 2020. Moped sharing regulation schemes around the world — a brief look at Vehicles Powered Micromobility Vehicle. the status quo. Unu Share: Mobility Insights. Salvador, J., Ricart, J.E., Fageda, X., Planas, M.R., 2020. METRO LIGERO DE TENERIFE Howe, E., Jakobsen, F.J., 2020. Global Moped Sharing Market Report 2020. LÍNEA 1. (ESPAÑA). Caso de Estudio PPP for Cities. https://doi.org/10.15581/018. IDESCAT, 2020. Institut d’estadística de Catalunya (Statistics Institute of Catalonia). www.id ST-601. escat.cat. Sareen, S., Remme, D., Haarstad, H., 2021. E-scooter regulation: the micro-politics of IDESCAT, 2021. Institut d’estadística de Catalunya (Statistics Institute of Catalonia). www.id market-making for micro-mobility in Bergen. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 40, escat.cat. 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.009. Kitchin, R., Tate, N., 2000. Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Shaheen, S., 2017. Travel Behavior. Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity. Methodology and Practice, first ed. Routledge. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., 2019. Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Kobayashi, L.M., Williams, E., Brown, C.V., Emigh, B.J., Bansal, V., Badiee, J., Bike and Scooter Sharing, 1–9. Transportation Sustainability Research Center, UC Checchi, K.D., Castillo, E.M., Doucet, J., 2019. The e-merging e-pidemic of e- Berkeley. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2TH8JW7. scooters. Trauma Surgery and Acute Care Open 4 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/ Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chan, N., Bansal, A., 2020. Sharing strategies: carsharing, shared tsaco-2019-000337. micromobility (bikesharing and scooter sharing), transportation network companies, Laa, B., Emberger, G., 2020. Bike sharing: regulatory options for conflicting interests – microtransit, and other innovative mobility modes. In: Transportation, Land Use, case study Vienna. Transport Pol. 98, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and Environmental Planning. Elsevier Inc, pp. 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/ tranpol.2020.03.009. b978-0-12-815167-9.00013-x, 2010. Lamb, W.F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Timmons Roberts, J., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., Minx, J. Sherriff, G., Adams, M., Blazejewski, L., Davies, N., Kamerāde, D., 2020. From Mobike to C., Müller-Hansen, F., Culhane, T., Steinberger, J.K., 2020. Discourses of climate no bike in Greater Manchester: using the capabilities approach to explore Europe’s delay. Global Sustainability 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13. first wave of dockless bike share. J. Transport Geogr. 86 (December 2019), 102744 Latinopoulos, C., Patrier, A., Sivakumar, A., 2021. Planning for E-Scooter Use in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102744. Metropolitan Cities: A Case Study for Paris, 100. Transportation Research Part D: Tiznado-Aitken, I., Fuenzalida-Izquierdo, J., Sagaris, L., Mora, R., 2021. Using the five Transport and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103037. Ws to explore bikeshare equity in Santiago, Chile. J. Transport Geogr. 97, 103210 Lazarus, J., Pourquier, J.C., Feng, F., Hammel, H., Shaheen, S., 2020. Micromobility https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103210. evolution and expansion: understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing Valles, M.S., 2007. Entrevistas cualitativas. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. https models complement and compete – a case study of San Francisco. J. Transport ://books.google.es/books?id=6xkfw-n9n8EC. Geogr. 84 (December 2019), 102620 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. van Goeverden, C., Rietveld, P., Koelemeijer, J., Peeters, P., 2006. Subsidies in public jtrangeo.2019.102620. transport. European Transport \ Trasporti Europei n 32, 5–25. Li, L., Park, P., Yang, S.B., 2021. The role of public-private partnership in constructing Wang, H., Xiong, W., Yang, L., Zhu, D., Cheng, Z., 2020. How does public-private the smart transportation city: a case of the bike sharing platform. Asia Pac. J. collaboration reinvent? A comparative analysis of urban bicycle-sharing policy Tourism Res. 26 (4), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1544913. diffusion in China. Cities 96, 102429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102429. Litman, T., 2021. New Mobilities. Smart Planning for Emerging Transportation February 2019. Technologies. Island Press. Willoughby, C., 2012. How much can public private partnership really do for urban Ma, X., Ji, Y., Yuan, Y., van Oort, N., Jin, Y., Hoogendoorn, S., 2020. A comparison in transport in developing countries? Research in Transportation Economics. https:// travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike- doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.038. sharing systems using multi-sourced data. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 139 (December Winslow, J., Mont, O., 2019. Bicycle sharing: sustainable value creation and 2019), 148–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.022. institutionalisation strategies in Barcelona. Sustainability 11 (3). https://doi.org/ Marquet, O., Miralles-Guasch, C., 2016. City of Motorcycles. On how objective and 10.3390/su11030728. subjective factors are behind the rise of two-wheeled mobility in Barcelona. Wood, J., Hamidi, S., 2019. Regulating the Ride: Lessons on the Evolution of Dockless Transport Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.002. Bikeshare Policy in American Cities. Mazzucato, M., 2015. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Zhang, M., Zhao, P., 2021. Literature review on urban transport equity in transitional Myths. PublicAffairs. China: from empirical studies to universal knowledge. Journal of Transport McKenzie, G., 2018. Docked vs. Dockless bike-sharing: contrasting spatiotemporal Geography 96, 103177. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2021.103177. patterns. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, LIPIcs 114 (46), 1–7. Zhang, Y., Chen, P., Guo, Y., 2021. Identifying Multi-Modal Deserts: a Multivariate https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2018.46. Outlier Detection Approach. 162